Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Darden's report in 167-2 is very interesting.

    It discusses Rossi's preoccupation with a Nobel prize (without refuting it, given the actors).

    They admit that IR measurements are a problem. But they had several exploding devices (which are NOT identified as electrical problems).


    He confirms the QuarkX development, including "flashes of light".

  • Dewey reckons the Lugano report says the sample was taken from the plug, not the ridges. According to 167-08 at least.


    I guess IH didn't fancy trying to explain Tom Clarke's incisive emmisivity paper to a bunch of lawyers. (No sarcasm intended).

    I reckon the same thing. But the report states clearly otherwise. The exhibit transcript seems be somewhat confused, or is missing an important part that immediately followed the segment.

  • The judge refused to enter them under SEAL -- and therefore dismissed the motion as moot.


    So Rossi refiled the motion (and attachments) NOT under seal.


    The Order 163 says "2. The Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 161] and its attached exhibits are STRICKEN."


    This (167 and attachments) seems to be that motion for Sanctions. Apparently it was re-filed, but why was it it stricken before, if it was the Motion to Seal that was denied?

    Maybe it is some Court procedural rule. I would have thought that the original 161 and attachments would have remained intact. Maybe they took some parts out?

  • Eric Walker ,

    I have been doing that for ages. I usually just click the arrow, to reverse the order of the files to latest first.


    Edit: On my Pad, It wants to Sort the files when I try the arrow, but it seems to work fine.


    Edit2: After a recent update to Adobe Reader, the actual PDF doesn't want to open in my Pad directly after selection (just keeps doing the circle thing), and I have to click near the top and Open in a New Tab to see the file, which opens more or less normally. I think it is something to do with my Google Drive set up.

  • Anyways, I was under the impression that this Motion and exhibits were to be struck, so I am wondering why we are looking at it.


    It is the Court's docket. Since we are looking at them, then the Court must have intended that we be looking at them. They don't have to put everything that Rossi re-files on the docket if they don't want to.

  • No, unfortunately not.

    On an IPad I don't get even that far to see that screen which you have posted.


    However, if I am the only one with this troubles, you don't have to put in any efforts to solve this issue.


    If you hover over a document, then click on the little arrow and underscore icon, you should be able to download it.

  • I'm having trouble even opening the Google Drive listing on an older iPad, both in Safari and in Chrome. I just see the loading spinner. I wonder whether it's the iPad or the browsers.


    Forty-Two, I assume you have access to a desktop or laptop computer? If so, that might be the most straightforward way to access these documents for now.

  • I find this part of the description of IH's own experiments by Thomas Darden in Doc 167-02 exhibit 1 most interesting:



    It looks like they saw sudden uncontrollable excess heat bursts in their own experiments :huh::/

    As Darden describes this, it looks like these experiments were totally independent of Rossi, just following his "step-by-step" IP-guide.


    Also interesting is how he describes IH's very careful relations to Rossi. They knew about how strange this guy is, all the time, and didn't believe anything what "Rossi-says".

    This is good to know. At the beginning of the lawsuite I feared they blindly trusted Rossi, because they allowed to do such unconventional "independent third-party" tests without moaning.

  • Forty-Two, I assume you have access to a desktop or laptop computer? If so, that might be the most straightforward way to access these documents for now.

    Yes, I do have access to a desktop also.

    The problem with the IPad is exactly as you have described - but it only started when the list of documents got longer and longer. That's why I suggested if it is possible to start a new folder for future uploads.

    But I don't want to create additional work for you. Appreciate what you are already doing!

  • barty ,

    Sounds like Li erosion, but hard to say. Sparks might be something different.

    Considering the amount of current going into the Lugano reactor, if they were doing something similar with significantly smaller devices, I bet one probably would see some serious sparks now and then.

    Edit: I re-read that and see it was 1/4" SS.

  • Jed


    I must make the calculations simpler for you, it seems you do not get th eidea that PdD offers small energy


    200 millions grams x 25 w/gram - 5000 millions w

    or 5 GW or- 0.005 TW really not significant.

    Much ado for almost nothing.

    Capisci?

    peter

  • Thanks and apologies to Paradignoia

    Dear Para,

    Due o blog problems (few publications and events)

    and other problems I could not answer to your nice message yesterday, you have sent me photos to help solving ghe impossible 40 mm steam pipe mystery/blunder/trick.

    The pipes we can see there are definitely NOT the mean steam pipe.

    It is very simple and techno-logic why.

    Water goes to more working generators i.e. E-Cats

    and it is converted to steam. All these steam fluxes are going to a "vapor space" and are mixed (the entire process is computerized) The vapor space is a segement of a great pipe or adome placed in the rear part of the box higher than the cover/roof-to this is connected the steam pipe going to the customer- and I bet it is at least 200 mm as diameter.

    Insulation material and thickness- unknown but being for relatively low temp steam- no problem.

    can you find a photo of th rear upper part of the Plant?

    peter

  • Peter, your logic seems reversed. You have calculated that a 200mm pipe is required and now also some sort of "vapor space", However because the photos match the description in the court documents and show an insulated feed of a much smaller size you conclude it cannot be the pipe rather than the more obvious conclusion it just cannot produce 1MW.

    What are your thoughts on the original blue reactor. This almost certainly had a DN65 - 2 1/2" output pipe without a 'vapor space'. Did that produce 1MW ?

  • The keyword is UNSURPRISING

    As comrade Stalin would say (present today in:

    http://www.delanceyplace.com/?…F10%2F17&utm_medium=email


    the recent evolutions in the RvD trial are not surprising. Actually they are mirroring what happens here where a strong majority of

    IH faithful is trying hard to annihilate any opposition to the IH view of the situation sing

    the means I have described in the Oppressors' Decalog.

    The same approach to the Trial- not very effective, not especially ethical, and, I guess the

    same lack of real proofs- just factoids and inventions, clumsy misinterpretations.

    If we ignore this situation the perspective is bright.


    My personal advice is not answer to this.

    peter

  • I OCR'd Tom Darden's report on Lugano, but it's 19.5 kB, won't fit within the 10000 character limit of LENR-Forum.


    * * * *


    From: Tom Darden <tdard**@industrialheat.co>

    Date: Friday, March 7, 2014 12:43 AM

    To: Tom Darden <tdard**@industrialheat.co>, "Watkins, Thomas" <tewatki**@schellbray.com>

    Subject: Industrial Heat Update 3/6/14 CONFIDENTIAL


    This report describes some of the key events at Industrial Heat (IH) in February. The sections after the Summary offer more details for those of you with time to read a long document, but the Summary contains the salient points.


    Summary


    The third independent test of Rossi's technology began Wednesday, 2/26/14 in Switzerland. The committee of professors managing the test reported after one day that the new device appears to be generating 4-6 times as much energy as it is consuming. However, infrared measurement methods are subject to large errors based on settings which are specific to different materials and temperatures, so we are withholding judgment until the scientists have analyzed the data.


    Over the week that the test has been running, Rossi reports daily on the output and says it continues as before. But again, we will wait until the professors reach their final conclusions and we have a chance to review the work. We are not relying on Rossi's informal conclusions. The inputs and outputs are being recorded on computer drives and cameras, for future analysis by the committee of scientists, five of whom are from Sweden and two of whom are from Italy.


    We are exchanging research license agreements with two very large US manufacturing companies. Both want to license our technology, if their internal tests are successful, and both seem highly motivated. The names of the companies are confidential.


    We are increasing our patent work and spending. We have about 25 filed provisional patents now, and we are working on more. Many were filed by Rossi, and they are very informally written, so we need to re-do this work. The US patent office might be slightly more receptive to LENR patents now than they have been, although still not highly receptive.


    Public Relations


    My last update reported that word had gotten out about Industrial Heat being the entity backing Andrea Rossi's technology. Our goal was to avoid any publicity for as long as possible, simply because LENR technology, and our inventor specifically, are so controversial. We preferred to be identified only after achieving some success. But once we were known to be involved, we issued a press release so that people would have some facts about who we are and why we are interested.


    Broadly, the results of the news stories have been positive. Interested technology partners have been able to reach out, and we are having some productive conversations, detailed below.


    Licensing


    We have visited two large technology-based manufacturing businesses to discuss limited, research-based licenses. We have traded drafts of such an agreement with one, and it appears they will sign something acceptable to us. Under the discussed terms, they will assess our technology both theoretically and through testing. They will have no rights to the technology, or very limited rights, and they will have to create a limited internal group with restricted access to information. That group will not share their knowledge or work on other LENR projects. IH will get their data and engineering work. Either of us can stop the process at any time.


    Both of these companies are doing this because our technology, if successful, would substantially affect their businesses. They want advance awareness and an early relationship with us so they will be at an advantage in licensing negotiations. The second company sent another draft document to us this week to review, with conceptually similar terms. While both companies are motivated, they are formally skeptical as well. Rossi's reputation and unpredictability add to their skepticism, but also increase their appreciation for IH's role as an intermediary. We believe additional companies would do similar research at no cost to us, just to be able to see if the technology might have application to their business. In a similar vein, NASA has done general market and technical assessments of Rossi's technology as it coutd affect them, based only on the last Swedish test. Their report is attached below. Interestingly, Rossi emailed me today regarding one of his current research projects, which entails designing a jet or rocket motor using his devices. I am more interested in a simple steam boiler or a water heater right now, but it is good to see he is thinking beyond the current test in Switzerland.


    I met recently with a brilliant theoretical researcher in Greenwich, CT, who made money in financial services software and now does LENR research in his own laboratory; and with a German financier who supports Ukrainian physicists who believe they have a theory explaining how LENR works, and who want to build a test reactor. Both want to team up with us.


    I met also with Brillouin's entire management team, and | have spoken on the phone to their financial person several times. You may recall that IH owns a small investment in Brillouin, as well as rights to Rossi's technology. They are excited about IH becoming a larger investor, but they are upset that we chose Rossi instead of them for a significant investment--although they understand why, and they perceive Rossi is ahead of them in progress. I believe we have a good relationship. They agreed at a handshake level that we could license their technology for China, if we make a material investment in their company, probably $10 million. I am discussing this with some potential Chinese partners now who would invest the capital and use the technology.


    We have been contacted by several of Rossi's unhappy licensees from outside our geographic territory. We generally have avoided such conversations. But this is happening because people see us as an aggregator of LENR technologies and a friendly supporter, which is consistent with reality and helpful to us. Our long term goal is to gather these technologies and researchers and get the technology out to others who can implement and do further research.


    We also have been approached by people involved with two well-known entrepreneurial technology investors, with interests in rockets and alternative energy. We have not met with them, but we might in the next 30 days. One of them previously tried to meet with Rossi, but Rossi backed away before the meeting. I will attempt to find out why--usually the answer is fear of technology theft. The other is a large supporter of Tri-Alpha, a fusion company in California that we believe has spent hundreds of millions of dollars so far.


    Testing and Research


    I have mentioned in prior updates that the committee of mostly-Swedish physics professors that tested Rossi's reactor in Italy in 2013 would be performing a longer and more comprehensive test. The reasons for this are several: they apparently were impressed by what they saw last time, and they want to replicate the results, for a longer time period; Rossi reports that they have been discussing him as a Nobel prize candidate, if his technology proves out; and Rossi generally trusts them, so he is willing to allow them to do a test, rather than other entities that he perceives might try to steal something. Rossi is very compelled by the second reason above, the Nobel. In fact, it has been his sole focus for the last half year or more. He justifies this relative to his commitments to further develop IH's technology by pointing out that it would be very good for us if he won the Nobel Prize. This is correct, although his work on designing a new reactor for the test has delayed our overall progress. Also, a visible, public test creates public relations risk for us that may not be offset by the benefits even of the Nobel Prize. I say all this to convey that IH is not the driver behind the Swedish professors' test, and in fact, we are staying quite removed. But due to Rossi's extremely independent personality, the test was going to happen regardless of our sentiments. We have chosen to be friendly and helpful to Rossi's efforts for relationship reasons.


    Regarding the test, I began writing this update in the US, but this section comes from Switzerland where I visited the test site and met four of the professors. In my last update, I mentioned that Rossi wanted to do the test in Europe instead of our facility to better accommodate the scientists, who have to travel back and forth.


    We also like having distance between IH and this test, for several reasons. We want the test to be independent and not influenced by us. Also, we were and still are anxious about results. We felt Rossi was hurrying to make a new design in the last weeks before the test, and it was not properly assessed or measured in advance. It only existed for a few days before everything was shipped to Switzerland. We have been worrying that it would fail to produce excess energy, or that it would otherwise fail, because we had no time to test the new design to failure, meaning we do not know what temperature the device can tolerate. After destroying and improving probably a dozen different reactor designs over 5 months, we knew their set points and safe operating parameters, short of failure. This new reactor went from pure idea to working device to a FedEx box bound for Europe in just a few weeks.


    The current test is similar to the four-day test reported in the ArXiv article from May, 2013, although it entails a different reactor design using slightly different fuel than Rossi used in Europe or than we used in almost all our work in the US, until just before this test. This device is perhaps 25% as big and 10% as heavy as the prior reactor, yet Rossi believes it has similar output. The overall dimensions are roughly one foot long and 1.5" to 2" in diameter, and it weighs about 350 grams or 3/4 pound.

    * * * *

  • Continued


    * * * *


    In Switzerland, the testing team told me that the energy being produced by the reactor after one day exceeds that of conventional fuels, relative to the mass of the reactor. This is a very preliminary conclusion based on rough calculations, all to be re-done once the data can be analyzed in detail.


    The professors weighed the device before the test began, and they will compare the weight lost over the course of the month (or longer if it keeps running) with the energy produced. They will be updating their computations along the way, so after one day they were able to say it produced more energy than one could extract from 350 grams of anything conventional, like gasoline or high-efficiency batteries. In the future, besides refining the energy output computations, they will attempt to weigh the actual fuel instead of the whole reactor-they are just making preliminary observations and trying to be conservative.


    They also were being conservative, it seems, on some other relevant variables. This reactor is slightly finned, so it loses heat from convection faster than a smooth cylinder with less surface area. Their convection loss formula is for a smooth cylinder. They also ignored the greater finned surface area for purposes of calculating radiated energy. They measure the surface area as if it were smooth. These two factors might change the results by 10%. By the time the report is prepared, they probably will use more precise formulas for these items.


    My perennial caveat is that IR camera setting errors would dwarf this kind of conservatism. If they are wrong with the settings, the results are not meaningful. They did go through a camera calibration procedure at the beginning using an unfueled device, which is ideal. But, we do not yet know their procedure. We also can find questions or faults with the process they are using when making their preliminary, first-day calculations, like how are they averaging the temperature of the device when it varies greatly across the surface. This can be done appropriately, but we do not know how they will do it. One reason we do not know these answers now is because we are trying to be respectful and discreet. We do not want to intrude into their program aggressively, but rather to observe. Also, Rossi tends to be secretive and not open about these topics, and he often announces conclusions that do not make sense to us or that we disagree with. So, we are not comfortable with his responses to questions about the testing process. We think the professors are more knowledgeable and precise--their last report was so. If they do what they did last time, we believe their conclusions should be accurate. But all this bears watching, and in any event, we need not to rely on the results of any single test. I realize I might sound overly cautious or skeptical in reporting on results, but this is a function of the extreme difficulty of communicating with Rossi about measurement methods and processes.


    At the test site, I met Professors Levi and Foschi from the University of Bologna, who are long-term followers of Rossi's technology. Levi began his career at CERN, the Swiss nuclear collider and research facility, while Foschi is a young PhD. We perceive they are quite convinced this reaction works as reported, and they clearly do not bring a skeptic's point of view. They performed the first tests in December, 2012, which were reported in the ArXiv article along with the 2013 test, showing generally similar results. The latter test had multiple other participants.


    I also met Professors Pettersson and Hoistad from Uppsala University in Sweden. They were colleagues of Sven Kullander, a highly respected Swedish nuclear physicist, whom Rossi believes was the head of the committee that selects the winner of the physics Nobel prize. Kullander was the leader of the initiative to test Rossi's device. He died unexpectedly from a heart attack last month, while undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Rossi spoke to him about final plans for these Swiss tests only 6 hours before he died, and Kullander's son spoke at the funeral about his father's belief that Rossi's work was the most important development in science in many decades. Rossi believed his chance of winning the prize were extremely high under Kullander, who carried great weight in the physics world. He believes Hoistad has taken Kulllander's place as leader of the Nobel committee. He is a great guy, but he lacks Kullander's broad reputation and awareness, so he probably does not have such a deciding vote. None of these roles are publicly known, so these beliefs by Rossi cannot be verified. Also, we might prefer that the professors all be skeptics and think it does not work, instead of being more optimistic about it. Rossi and Fulvio Fabiani say they were much more skeptical when they came for the last test, but after that, they changed their opinions.


    The two Swedes in attendance were quite convinced that something important is happening. They said this, and they are investing time and reputation risk in this effort. They are mystified by the unwillingness of many professors to realize that some kind of LENR reactions occur (aside from ours), and that these reactions demonstrate there is a fundamental error in current physics theory. The Swedes hope that scientists will be able to acknowledge that one or more of the thousands of reports of anomalous excess energy are true, so therefore there is a flaw in their broader theories. Unraveling this flaw could be very important, beyond energy applications.


    Also participating in this test will be Hanno Essen, Lars Tegner and Torbjorn Hartman, who participated in the last test. They have reached agreement with Rossi that they will visit unannounced at various times in the next 30 days, and Pettersson and Hoistad plan to return also. Rossi and Fulvio Fabiani, his primary assistant, plan to stay throughout the next month and maybe for as long as 90 days. At the end of 30-90 days, assuming the machine is still operating, the mass vs. energy output analysis will be very clear-subject as always to one's confidence in the IR settings. The data are being logged on drives throughout the test, and we will have access to the data.


    Prior to beginning work in Switzerland, we saw results that were more compelling than we had seen previously during our testing and development period, from September, 2013 through January, 2014. Similar results were reported to have occurred in Italy, before we were involved, but we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production. And, we definitely had seen reactors not working at all. But I mentioned in my last update that we saw a reactor explode from the inside, relatively dramatically, as others had exploded in Italy. These explosions are not very violent, just a pressure release and a burst of energy blowing out the side for a couple of feet and a few seconds. We have since dismantled that reactor and saw that prior to exploding, it expanded or swelled by about 1/4". It was made from stainless steel, 1/4" thick and only about 1.25" in diameter, so it is extremely strong. This could only happen through a combination of very high temperature plus high pressure. Stainless steel melts at 1500 degrees C, far beyond our operating external temperatures, and we do not think the electricity we were using could have been sufficient to do this, implying that the energy came from inside the core. Of note, we changed the fuel formula right before building this device, and that fuel is being used in the device undergoing testing in Switzerland. Almost all the fuel used previously in Raleigh was different, and apparently less effective, because those devices never melted and exploded. All of our earlier failures were electrical in nature.


    We are building tiny glass reactors for rapid testing purposes. Our cost per test has dropped from thousands of dollars to about $25. We have been seeing flashes of energy in the fuel when it is heated. Our goal is to be able to see and record the intensity of reactions occurring with different fue! materials. We think this also could help us with patents because it will be harder to deny enablement, or that something happens, which is the basis for the US patent office's anti-LENR policy. If we have a video showing something occurring, that may be persuasive. We like these tests because they are very inexpensive, and they will be important for our patent development if they are in fact easy to see. But broadly, we intend to hand serious, long-term assessment and testing over to large engineering entities that have much greater capability than ours.


    Conclusion


    We are all feeling anxious these days because we are in the middle of a very public test. The early results have been positive, which is a relief especially when compared to how we were feeling about the probability of success right before the test began. However, we are completely reserving judgment regarding the output, waiting to see the data and the Swedish professors' conclusions.


    Our primary work now focuses on intellectual property development and on developing business partnerships. We want to acquire other technology rights and to find deployment partners that can implement. We want to see LENR technologies developed by larger, more sophisticated companies.


    Please reach out with any questions or comments. I would like to meet with any of you to discuss IH at any time, and I would enjoy getting the benefit of your insights. Thank you for your support.


    Tom Darden

    Industrial Heat

    919 522 4095

    tdard**@industrialheat.co

  • the synthesis of their test is:

    - no significant controlled anomalous heat obtained

    - one strange incident... maybe LENR?

    - Lugano test tricky, waiting for scientist opinion (we know now the problems).


    more important is the serious efforts to replicate and the desire to exploit the technology after confirmation.


    It is nor far from the dogbone replicators position here?

  • Ourprimary work now focuses on intellectual property development and ondeveloping business partnerships. We want to acquire other technologyrights and to find deployment partners that can implement. We want tosee LENR technologies developed by larger, more sophisticated companies.


    That's what it is all about!

  • I like this too...


    My perennial caveat is that IR camera setting errors would dwarf this kind of conservatism. If they are wrong with the settings, the results are not meaningful. They did go through a camera calibration procedure at the beginning using an unfueled device, which is ideal. But, we do not yet know their procedure. We also can find questions or faults with the process they are using when making their preliminary, first-day calculations, like how are they averaging the temperature of the device when it varies greatly across the surface. This can be done appropriately, but we do not know how they will do it. One reason we do not know these answers now is because we are trying to be respectful and discreet. We do not want to intrude into their program aggressively, but rather to observe. Also, Rossi tends to be secretive and not open about these topics, and he often announces conclusions that do not make sense to us or that we disagree with. So, we are not comfortable with his responses to questions about the testing process. We think the professors are more knowledgeable and precise--their last report was so. If they do what they did last time, we believe their conclusions should be accurate. But all this bears watching, and in any event, we need not to rely on the results of any single test. I realize I might sound overly cautious or skeptical in reporting on results, but this is a function of the extreme difficulty of communicating with Rossi about measurement methods and processes.

  • BTW, my guess about the origin of the reactor chips analysed for content after Lugano has become a sworn fact of Dewey's in Doral.


    Here's the cogent part of my guess. My bold'


    "I think I may have found the answer to the 'Durapot 810 scandal' that -for no good reason since it makes little difference to a flawed experiment - is being launched..


    I suspect that the sample used for analysis by Enio Bonetti came from the 'seal' of the reactor, not the reactor body itself. It would seem only natural (if sloppy) to assume that the sealing cement was the same stuff as the rest of the reactor- and there was some reluctance to damage the reactor itself which was the property of IH. IH obviously never informed the Lugano testers that the reactor body was made from Durapot 810 at the time. And if IH made the reactor, the sealing cement was probably provided by Rossi- who always used AFAIK pure alumina cement as did Focardi. So fragments of the broken seal would have been both the obvious (because this part of the reactor was handled by AR himself) and then most accessible source for a sample.


    I quote from the report...


    "Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors


    wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor. A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the


    caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal


    temperature of the reactor. The hole for the thermocouple probe is also the only access point for the fuel


    charge. The thermocouple probe cable is inserted in an alumina cement cylinder, which acts as a bushing and


    perfectly fits the hole, about 4 mm in diameter. When charging the reactor, the bushing is pulled out, and the


    charge is inserted. After the thermocouple probe has been lodged back in place, the bushing is sealed and


    secured with alumina cement. To extract the charge, pliers are used to open the seal."


    What would be more natural than to use the broken fragments as a convenient source of test material?"



    And just a few posts further on..."


    Not for me to say how any of this arose, and I don't intend to poke my nose in by asking. Either way it makes no difference, if the sample was one of the fragments laying on the benchtop and came via Rossi's hand or was picked up by Levi and assumed to be the same material the reactor body was made from , the analysis itself is good and rather spoils any assertions of deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the Lugano team or any of its members . This 'large' mystery becomes an almost non-existent one. Anyway, I am unsure whether Durapot 810 band emissivity would be wildly different from that of pure Alumina. I am far from being a thermography expert, in fact very far away. Maybe THH can enlighten me? ***


    BTW, where is the ex-Lugano device???"


    *** he never did- unless I missed it.

  • I've been asked to tone it down on the blogs for a little while so Rossi wins that skirmish but I'll leave you with this - find the Rossi SP posting from Feb 21 on JONP where, out of the blue, it gets posted that the Lugano reactor was made of "Durapox" and check the 1:59pm timestamp. The partial clip from my deposition (conveniently clipped in the exhibit) discussing Durapot 810 was at about the same time / date. R was sitting right there posting away, during my testimony, apparently desperate to influence the story. That has other implications as well regarding aliases and our attempts to figure out how we and others were tricked.


    See you on the other side,

    Dewey